Peter says that Christ's flesh did not see corruption. I believe him when he says that.
Let's use all of Peter's words. Peter says that Christ's body was not left to decay because it was raised
. I believe him when he says that.
Do you think that actually his flesh was corrupting in the grave, as any corpse normally would?
Of course it was. His body wasn't magic, his body was corrupting from the time that he died on the cross.
I didn't say that in John 6, manna is used as a figure for resurrection.
I didn't say you did. I just pointed out that there's nothing in John 6 which substantiates your point that the manna in the Pentateuch represents resurrection.
I said that here Jesus is showing the manna was a figure for himself, and indeed he is. He says that he is the true bread, the bread from heaven which fulfilled - but went far beyond - the pattern of the manna in the wilderness. He said that the bread, eating of which can bring eternal life, was his flesh. The connection with resurrection comes then in Acts 2 where Peter says of Christ that his flesh did not see corruption. It is in this respect that the figure of the preservation of the 6th day's manna, which was, unnaturally, found uncorrupted (without worms, and not stinking) on the morning of the sabbath, is a figure for Jesus' resurrection, when he was raised from the death, not having experienced corruption.
Your reasoning is:
1. The manna is a figure of Christ.
2. Christ said that eating his flesh brings eternal life.
3. Christ's flesh did not see corruption.
4. Christ was raised.
5. Therefore the manna being uncorrupted on the 6th day is a figure for Christ's resurrection.
There is no logical chain of reasoning here which results in the manna being a symbol of Christ's resurrection. As has been pointed out again and again, the manna was never in a state analogous to death, let alone 'corruption'. Furthermore, examining each point we find:
1. Christ did not use the manna as a figure of himself. He contrasted himself with the manna saying he is the true
bread from heaven, which if a man eat he will receive eternal life.
2. Christ was not speaking of his literal flesh, so the chain of reasoning "manna = Jesus' flesh = uncorrupted flesh = uncorrupted flesh which was raised" is simply a non-sequitur; the conclusion does not proceed logically from the premise.
3-4. Christ's body was not left to decay because he was raised
Edited by Fortigurn, 21 November 2010 - 12:33 AM.